Talk:Anarkali

Tomb

I'm wondering if the Persian couplet on her tomb is correct. This may seem silly but in the linked video (which btw, I first saw on a Pakistani music show and had been dying to see again, thanks!), 5min 42secs into the video they show this couplet in nast'alīq:

تا قیامت شکر گویم کرد گر خویش را
آہ گر من باز بینم روئ یار خویش را

Only in the video, the "gar" is written گار. I'm not an expert or anything, but I think this would fit better as a rhyming scheme with the next line in the še'r : yār khwīš rā and thus more likely to be correct. But, then again, I don't know Persian.

Someone please add something on the Anārkalī Bāzār if you know anything about it (my knowledge is limited to the Teach Yourself Urdu book!). On google earth I found her tomb. So is the big dirt lot across the street the bazaar?

I am glad at least that Asif's 'Mughal-e-Azam' was added. Awesome film! Khirad 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! Indeed, in Persian کردگار (kirdigār or kerdegār) means "God." That was my mistake. I've corrected it. Again, thank you! --Kitabparast 05:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 04:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

References to be cross checked

• https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/567960-chronicles-anarkali

Bookku (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Greetings @Alivardi:, it seems some months back you worked on the lead. In my sandbox I had taken some tentative notes on previous editdif of the article Anarkali before your update to the lead. I wanted to work little more but could not do so. Following is not complete and in Wikipedia we go as reliable sources say so I am not sure how far following notes will be useful but it's better to be at the talk page rather than in my sand box. It's over to you.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

	Claim	Issues	Logical inferance
	Anarkali (Urdu: انارکلی‎, lit. 'pomegranate blossom'), born as Sharif un-Nissa, and also known as Nadira Begum,	Other than various speculation including any scholars no one has any historical documentary proof to give any specific name to the person in the tomb	Still it also does not mean that person did not exist since a valued Tomb exists with specific inscription. It is only that person existed and history has not left sufficient clues to conclusively name the person.
	was a courtesan from Lahore (in modern-day Pakistan).	Again no proof that she was a courtesan that is again a mere speculation	A speculation not wise to include in lead intro sentence
	According to one story	Again not proper to use word story in lead intro since in gives undue weightage to speculation , again rest of the article gave undue weightage to say everything is just fiction almost stretched to the level any person and tomb did not exist but that is not true either	Where as fact from inscription and existence of tomb indicates that a prince turned Emperor had his some beloved for whom he got a tomb constructed and left an inscription there on
	Anarkali had an illicit relationship with the Crown Prince Jahangir	Some relation ship being licit or illicit is subjective moral judgement. More over undue weightage in lead intro since history conclusively does not know whether relationship was illicit or not by any standard unless every Love is to be termed illicit
	There is no historic proof of Anarakali's existence	Again undue weight in lead intro, blanket statement ignores existence of the 'inscribed tomb'	so some person existed but history has not left sufficient clue to conclusively name the person in the tomb

Issue of other problematic edits

• This article risks form following kind of POV pushings
  • Anti–legend POV pushing: Entirely writing off any possibility of some unknown person might have been there in Jahangir's life for whom he got the tomb constructed.
  • Pro–legend POV pushing: Without taking into account all the accounts about 'Anarkali' are speculative or fictional, pushing POV as of speculation or fiction is not speculation or fiction but real only.
  • Insertion of new fictional accounts from literature and movies like folk legends.

• Edit dif Examples:
  • Dif: 1068428868:
  • the alleged Tomb of Anarkali bears inscription: → the Tomb of Anarkali bears inscription:

Actually alleged word is correct over here

• • There is no historical evidence of Anarakali's existence and the authenticity of her story is contested among academics.

This was a correct statement but was deleted.

• • The 'unknown' lover of Emperor Jahangir→ The lover of Emperor Jahangir

The unknown word was correct here still deleted.

• • Dif
  • Deletion from personalities and time line section: Mother of Daniyal Mirza — Royal concubine of Akbar as per— Tuzk-e-Jahangiri — Died 1596

This is quite referenced detail, though contested by some historians but very core to Anarkali legend and part of 'William Finch' account. If Finch account would not have shared the legend then Anarkali legend would not have been in circulation. It as much central to the article still some one deleted the details from the table.

• • Dif: 1105932436
  • ".. According to speculative and fictional accounts, Anarkali had an illicit relationship with Salim, .." changed to ".. According to some accounts, Anarkali had an illicit relationship with Salim, .."

There is no primary source which can confirm of the relationship specially being illicit one, specially since historians and academics have doubted reliability of available primary sources. Again whether any male–female love relationship being 'illicit' or not is subjective terminology. So all the accounts can be necessarily categorized in between speculative and fictional. Usage of word Some accounts seems to give weightage to unconformable accounts.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Madhubala as Anarkali in Mughal-e-Azam.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Citations and issues

I had made a citation help request @ humanities desk shall update the link once archived for ref.

What are the issues before us

• 1. Jahangir ordered the body of the tomb to be wrought in gold.

This sentence shall need citation till then we shall remove it.

• Dara also mentions the existence of a tomb in the garden but does not give it a name.

This sentence shall need citation till then we shall remove it.

• According to Akbar Nama, Jahangir "became violently enamoured of the daughter of Zain Khan Koka. H.M. (Akbar) was displeased at the impropriety, but he saw that his heart was immoderately affected, he, of necessity, gave his consent.

                                                                          :: Primary Akbar Nama reference available having secondary reference is preferable. 

• The translator of Akbar Nama, H. Beveridge, said Akbar objected to the marriage because the Prince was already married "to Zain Khan’s niece" (actually the daughter of paternal uncle of Zain Khan, and hence Zain Khan's cousin). Akbar objected to marrying near relations.

Primary Akbar Nama reference available having secondary reference is preferable.

• The accounts of the British travellers, and consequently the presumption of Eraly, is unlikely because Prince Daniyal's mother died in 1596, which does not match the dates inscribed on the sarcophagus.

Needs citation

• According to William Glover Anarkali born as Sharif un-Nissa, Verification/ confirmation and page number if possible from "Making Lahore Modern, Constructing and Imagining a Colonial City. Univ of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0816650224</nowiki>.

needed.

• Tomb is dated from 1599 besides Nur Jahan comes on scene from 1611 besides She had her own separate tomb so just due to scholarly refs take note of one of mistaken popular belief just to refute, since scholarly discourse takes note then we too mention but need not be given too much weight. So Nur Jahan section to be trimmed and rewritten. ← Scheduled in couple of days.
• Opinion of historian Ram Nath Tertiary references from news media are available,

But identifying from exactly which book of Ram Nath and providing relevant citation is preferable.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Overall quality of the page

The page has a large number of grammatical errors and formatting mistakes that make it difficult to understand. I would suggest editing this (provided the editor knows about the topic) CharlotteVessem (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Fictional?

Jer existence is disputed. Much of what is said on her comes from fictional accounts. I think we should keep such people out of categories for real people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)